merging example

C. Michael Pilato cmpilato at
Mon Mar 28 09:52:37 CDT 2011

Well, Chris, I'm fresh out of ideas, and we're veering way off-topic for
this list.

So, for the purposes of the book, consider it noted that there's some value
in including the specific revision range in the merge example.  I've filed
an issue in the book's tracker for this:

Regarding your specific situation, if you wish to pursue the matter further
in terms of understanding why the merge tracker feature wasn't doing what
you'd expect, perhaps you could start up a thread about this on
users at  Feel free to quote any bits of our exchange
that you think will benefit those reading the new thread.

On 03/26/2011 01:36 AM, Chris Johnk wrote:
> Ha! I spent some time trying to figure out where to file it - looking
> at the bug tracker and the mailing lists.
> Anyway, yes, this branch was created properly with 'svn copy'. It
> shares common history with trunk. I've run an 'svn log' against it,
> and I can see revisions prior to the branch.
> Chris
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:03 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> <cmpilato at> wrote:
>> On 03/25/2011 04:03 PM, Chris Johnk wrote:
>>> I will figure out how to file it, and do so.
>> Oops!  Sorry, I was being sarcastic.
>>> Our subversion server is 1.5.1.
>>> Here's some more background information: the trunk had a long,
>>> complicated revision history before the branch was even created. For
>>> both 1.5.1 and 1.6.16, this is the first information that comes back
>>> on attempting the merge without the revision specified:
>>> --- Merging r36 through r2166 into '.':
>>> This was attempting to merge trunk into a branch that was created at r2163.
>> Was the branch created in the recommended way -- as an 'svn copy' of the
>> trunk?  In other words, does the branch in fact share common history with
>> the trunk?  If not, then that explains what's going on here.
>> --
>> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at> |

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at> |

More information about the svnbook-dev mailing list